Kansas Concealed Weapons Bill

[Frodo]

Kan. concealed-weapons bill to become law

By CARL MANNING
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

TOPEKA, Kan. -- The state House on Thursday overrode Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' veto of a concealed weapons bill, allowing it to become law this summer.

The vote was 91-33, giving supporters seven votes more than the required two-thirds majority. The Senate voted 30-10 for the override Wednesday night, three votes more than needed.

The new law, taking effect July 1, will allow Kansans who are U.S. citizens to obtain concealed-carry permits from their local sheriffs. Applicants must be 21 and take firearms training, and hidden weapons still will be banned in some places, including schools, churches, libraries and courthouses.

Sen. Phil Journey, a sponsor of the bill, said it was "about making Kansans safer. ... It's about trusting law abiding citizens to make this choice."

In her veto message Tuesday, Sebelius questioned its effectiveness and cited opposition from law enforcement officials and business leaders. However, even some of Sebelius' fellow Democrats voted for the override.

She vetoed a similar bill in 2004, as her predecessor, Republican Bill Graves, did in 1997.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the moment, I can't find the House bill this article is referring to, but here is the Senate version. 

[MODU]

No (sane).  The general public has no need to carry weapons on their bodies while they are not at home or at a shooting range.

[John Dibble]

No (sane).  The general public has no need to carry weapons on their bodies while they are not at home or at a shooting range.

So, if a criminal approached me on the streets and was threatening my life, I would have no need for a weapon because I'm not at home or at a shooting range?


I support this bill. It should also be noted that statistically speaking people who have concealed carry licenses are far less likely than the general population to commit a gun crime.

[MODU]

So, if a criminal approached me on the streets and was threatening my life, I would have no need for a weapon because I'm not at home or at a shooting range?

I support this bill. It should also be noted that statistically speaking people who have concealed carry licenses are far less likely than the general population to commit a gun crime.

Personally, no.  The best action is just to give the guy what he wants, and while you are doing that, do your best to find a unique identifying aspect of his person.  Let the cops deal with finding/handling him.  There are too many cases where victims try to defend themselves with some form of weapon, just to end up having it used against them. 

[Emsworth]

Yes. The right of self-defense is not restricted to one's home; it applies in public as well. Moreover, the right to conceal and carry weapons is protected by the Second Amendment.

[John Dibble]

So, if a criminal approached me on the streets and was threatening my life, I would have no need for a weapon because I'm not at home or at a shooting range?

I support this bill. It should also be noted that statistically speaking people who have concealed carry licenses are far less likely than the general population to commit a gun crime.

Personally, no.  The best action is just to give the guy what he wants, and while you are doing that, do your best to find a unique identifying aspect of his person.  Let the cops deal with finding/handling him.  There are too many cases where victims try to defend themselves with some form of weapon, just to end up having it used against them. 

Are you aware that you are more likely to be injured by not resisting the criminal than you are by pulling a gun on him? Using a gun on the other hand has the lowest injury rate of any means of self defense. (Knives on the other hand have the highest injury rate)

EDIT - I dug up this old post to get more specific information. Chart on the bottom shows the injury rates.

And, as to your proposal that I 'give the guy what he wants', I would ask you this - If I was a 5'5" 120lb woman, and the criminal was a 6'2" 210lb man, and what he wanted was to rape me, you would advise that I let him rape me instead of pulling a gun on him?

[Alcon]

Yes (D)

[MasterJedi]

Yes (R)

[Bono]

About time the black sopts in the heartland would start to fade away. Now we only need to take care of Nebraska.

[WMS]

Yep (I).

[Speed of Sound]

Certainly Not (O)

This is ridiculous. People dont need guns on them all the time, that will only lead to trouble.

[AkSaber]

Yes. The right of self-defense is not restricted to one's home; it applies in public as well. Moreover, the right to conceal and carry weapons is protected by the Second Amendment.

[© tweed]

No

[John Dibble]

Certainly Not (O)

This is ridiculous. People dont need guns on them all the time, that will only lead to trouble.

Pure speculation. If you want to make a case, show how gun violence and random shootings increased in states that currently allow concealed carry. If you can that is.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Republican -Yes

[MODU]

Are you aware that you are more likely to be injured by not resisting the criminal than you are by pulling a gun on him? Using a gun on the other hand has the lowest injury rate of any means of self defense. (Knives on the other hand have the highest injury rate)

EDIT - I dug up this old post to get more specific information. Chart on the bottom shows the injury rates.

And, as to your proposal that I 'give the guy what he wants', I would ask you this - If I was a 5'5" 120lb woman, and the criminal was a 6'2" 210lb man, and what he wanted was to rape me, you would advise that I let him rape me instead of pulling a gun on him?

Would you rather be injured or killed?  You chases of being killed instantly rise with brandishing a weapon, especially when the attacker already has the advantage.  As far as being raped goes, your best bet is to run and shout "fire," not to attempt to fumble around for a weapon while in a panicked state.

[John Dibble]

Would you rather be injured or killed?  You chases of being killed instantly rise with brandishing a weapon, especially when the attacker already has the advantage.  As far as being raped goes, your best bet is to run and shout "fire," not to attempt to fumble around for a weapon while in a panicked state.

Do you have any statistics to back that up? And if so, are the numbers significant. Also it would be useful if such numbers included which type of weapon(as has been shown, knives have the highest injury rate, so knives would likely have the highest death rate as well - it may also be shown that guns have the lowest death rate).

Also, running might not be an option you know. The criminal might be able to outrun you. And yes, it's not good to fumble with your weapon in a panicked state, rather it's a better idea to learn how to maintain your cool under pressure so you can respond appropriately. Running away blindly in a panicked state isn't good either.

As to whether or not I'd rather be injured or killed - injured of course. However, I'm not going to trust that a criminal who is already threatening me is just going to let me live. Many don't even if they say they will. I'm not going to take my chances. My father didn't have a weapon with him when he was killed, but that didn't stop the criminal from killing him to get his car - if he had a gun with him his chances of survival would have been much greater and he may have lived through the incident.

[MODU]

I'm sorry to hear about your father.

As far as actual numbers, no, I don't carry statistics in my back pocket as some people do.  Just recall all I've read and heard during my years and in my self-defense courses.  Your odds of survival are greater when you do not provoke the attacker.

[John Dibble]

As far as actual numbers, no, I don't carry statistics in my back pocket as some people do.  Just recall all I've read and heard during my years and in my self-defense courses.  Your odds of survival are greater when you do not provoke the attacker.

Well, define 'provoke' because there's many connotations to that. That could mean saying things you really shouldn't be saying.

From what I've read, criminals are very likely to flee when presented with an armed victim. Like I said earlier, since drawing a knife has the highest injury rate I would assume it also has the highest death rate, and since guns have the lowest injury rate I would assume they have a low death rate.

Personally, if confronted by a criminal I would do as the situation calls for. This may mean running away, or it may mean fighting back. It depends on the situation, but I'd rather the options of law abiding citizens who are forced into situations like this not be decreased. When pushed into that kind of situation, you want to have as many options as you can available to you - as they say in the scouts, 'be prepared'. The purpose of self-defense is to save one's own life by whatever means are necessary, and I'd prefer those means be available.

[David S]

39 states now have right to carry laws including Modu's home state.  And yet murder rates are at the lowest levels they have been at in many years.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_01-01a.html

[Sam Spade]

Of course (D)

[Frodo]

For those who are having trouble reading David S' Right to Carry map:



And yes, I do support the Concealed-Carry Weapons bill passed by the Kansas legislature, in case anyone had any doubts as to my position -the prospect of their potential victims being armed with a lethal weapon will make criminals think twice before assaulting them. 

[??????????]

Yes - Freedom lover

[Frodo]

About time the black sopts in the heartland would start to fade away. Now we only need to take care of Nebraska.

That shouldn't be too difficult.  And why do you exclude Wisconsin? 

[The Dowager Mod]

Yes(G)